Okay, call me a racist. We still need to talk.

It's not me, it's you. A letter to Canadians. Please restack if you share concerns.

If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story.

Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $6 per month and less than USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!”

But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.

_______________________________________________

As a kid, I remember the Weider weight-lifting ads on the back inside cover of comic books. The ad’s storyline starts with the spindly kid getting sand kicked in his face and his subsequent determination to bulk up and not let himself be pushed around. Their slogans were “Build a Body That Commands Respect!” or “Don’t Be a 98-Pound Weakling!”

Both domestically and internationally, Canada is a 98-pound weakling, even though we are born of robust parents. There is no reason for it; we are a rich and blessed country, the only country in the world among the top six in oil and gas production, agriculture, and mineral wealth. But though we are getting sand kicked in our faces, we still hang out at the yoghurt bar every time we go to the gym. We are unwilling to do the hard work that building cultural and economic muscles requires, and we are too consumed with preaching the virtues of exercise and weight lifting.

We sometimes seem to believe rhetoric and posturing are governing, like someone caught up in the gym's excitement, all the grunting and rattling; we convince ourselves that this will prevent us from having sand kicked in our faces domestically and internationally.

As Canadians, we pride ourselves on being a welcoming society, a mosaic of cultures and backgrounds bound together by shared principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights. But there’s a growing tension that we’re increasingly afraid to confront. It centres on immigration, assimilation, and the fundamental question of what it means to be Canadian—not by birth, but by choice.

The news or our own eyes are bringing the crisis forward; we have masked protesters, cars burning, buildings being occupied, cries of ‘Death to Canada,’ ‘Gas the Jews, ’ ‘Go back to Europe!’ and other vile curses. They have a faint and unpleasant echo of what we know about Germany in the early 1930s.

What are the values someone must share to become part of our society? And what happens when newcomers openly reject those values? Are we loving, or simply weak and dupes, allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of?

We can say that mass immigration of people with values and practices couldn’t bring about the collapse of a society, but this simply isn’t historically true. Of course, such conversations are delicate. People should be judged individually, and good faith on an individual level should always suggest that we grant people the benefit of the doubt. In an age of social contagion, with mounting economic pressures, we must be diligent not to create scapegoats.

Cultures have shared norms and values. Of course, they are not absolute, but that doesn’t mean they can be ignored. Our refusal to discuss the norms and the broad social and cultural values of those joining our society is not driven by prudence but by timidity, performative virtue signalling, willful blindness and the deep fear of being called racist.

These fears are paralysing us and pushing decisions into the future that need to be discussed today.

It’s tiresome, but even a minor incursion into a discussion of what values we want from immigrants is often, when it hasn’t been squelched by self-censorship, met with hysteria and name calling and endless variants of, “But I know a Muslim couple down the street, and they’re lovely. “

I am sure they are lovely; we have many stories. However, they do not negate the idea that shared values matter. Usually, such anecdotes are meant to signal that the person wants to get out of the conversation. Some objections are not an exit signal; they are like a darting side-eye. They show suspicion. Some can’t stop preaching the dim assumption of cultural relativism, the idea that all cultures are equal and that any condemnation of a culture is unfair.

This is nonsense, and we need to say it loud and proud. If it hurts someone’s feelings, they should buy tissues. Except if you getting harassed by a human rights manager—in that case, pay attention to the hurt feelings. Hurting feelings can put you in jail.

Many cultural norms are not worth digging our heels in on, especially when the newcomers aren’t asking everyone to adapt to their variant. Sometimes, liberal white guilt drives the accommodation, and the newcomers are not demanding it themselves. A local Toronto school board recently unilaterally decided to ban Christmas celebrations because a class of over 30 had two Syrian refugees. They thought it would make the newcomers uncomfortable. So, instead of creating an environment where the newcomers could be pulled in and welcomed into our cultural rites, they shut down the show and made the newcomers look like they had killed the party. This act of goodwill was divisive.

One can swallow all the cultural relativism they want, but it does not change reality. For example, the Anti-Defamation League has a survey to assess antisemitic attitudes worldwide. The most recent data indicates that the following five countries exhibit the highest levels of antisemitic sentiments:

1. West Bank and Gaza: 93% of respondents harboured antisemitic attitudes.

2. Iraq: 92% of the population held antisemitic views.

3. Yemen: 88% of respondents expressed antisemitic sentiments.

4. Algeria: 87% of the population exhibited antisemitic attitudes.

5. Libya: 87% of respondents were identified as holding antisemitic views.

And to be clear, these numbers are before the Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of Israel by Hamas and Palestinian civilians. Today, this is compounded - a recent survey noted in Fortune says over 25% of US hiring managers don’t want to hire Jews.¹

Canada's anti-Semitism score is 15%, and the US's score is 9%. I realise that we are an insecure nation and obsessed with not being American and beating Americans. But this is not a win. Let’s keep the victories on the hockey rink.

The desire among Muslims to implement sharia law varies significantly across different countries and communities. In the United Kingdom, a 2016 survey by Policy Exchange found that 43% of British Muslims supported the introduction of aspects of sharia law, while 22% opposed it. It’s important to note that support for sharia does not necessarily equate to a desire to establish a theocracy or to replace existing legal systems entirely. Many who support Sharia envision it applying primarily to personal and family matters within their communities rather than as a comprehensive legal system governing all aspects of life. But it is troubling.

A 2013 Pew Research Center survey reported that support for making sharia the official law of the land was highest in countries like Afghanistan (99%) and Iraq (91%). In contrast, support was significantly lower in countries such as Turkey (12%) and Kazakhstan (10%).

The divide between an Islamist worldview and a modern liberal democracy is stark. Islamist ideology, particularly the strain rooted in Medina-era Islam, advocates for a theocratic society where conversion, or at least subjugation of non-Muslims, is a given. Their beliefs are fundamentally at odds with Canada’s secular, pluralistic values.

It’s not just about theological differences—it’s about societal norms.

In Canada, we believe in equality before the law, regardless of gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

Yet, some immigrants arrive with deeply ingrained beliefs that homosexuality is sinful, that women are subordinate to men, and that sharia law should supersede secular law. These aren’t fringe views; they are mainstream in some parts of the world. We hope to keep the room clean forever, even if we sweep the dirt under the carpet.

The question we must ask is simple: why are we bringing in people who fundamentally reject the principles that underpin Canadian society? This isn’t about race or religion—it’s about values. Hindus don’t come here and demand that laws be changed to reflect their faith. Buddhists don’t rally in the streets for policies that contravene human rights. Why, then, do we tolerate those who refuse to integrate and actively seek to undermine the values we hold dear?’

Are there examples of countries destroyed by their immigration policy?

Yes. Sort of.

Instances where the failure to integrate or reconcile differing values has contributed to societal tensions, instability, or even collapse often involve governance failures, economic pressures, and preexisting societal divisions.

Here are some historical and modern cases where immigration or cultural integration challenges played a role—though rarely the sole role—in societal changes or disruptions:

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire (5th Century CE)

What Happened: The Roman Empire faced significant migration pressures from “barbarian” tribes such as the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths. Many of these groups fled the Huns and sought refuge within Roman borders.

Cultural and Governance Issues: These groups often retained their distinct cultural identities and governance systems, which clashed with Roman institutions. Roman authorities' inability to integrate these groups into the broader societal and legal framework created divisions. While immigration was not the sole cause of Rome’s decline—economic instability, corruption, and military overextension were major factors—the influx of large, unassimilated groups contributed to the empire’s fragmentation.

Yugoslavia and Ethnic Fragmentation (1990s)

What Happened: The breakup of Yugoslavia into several independent states was marked by brutal ethnic conflicts among Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and others.

Cultural and Governance Issues: Immigration was not the central issue, but population movements and historical grievances between groups led to competing visions of governance and national identity. The inability to create a unified identity among diverse ethnic and cultural groups contributed to the violence and eventual collapse of the state.

Outcome: Failing to integrate or mediate between differing cultural values and practices within a single state led to war and fragmentation.

Lebanon and Sectarian Tensions (20th Century)

What Happened: Lebanon’s political system was designed to balance power among religious groups (e.g., Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims).

Cultural and Governance Issues: Over time, demographic changes, including the influx of Palestinian refugees after the establishment of Israel and the PLO and their aggressive and violent proclivities, upset the delicate sectarian balance. Differing cultural and political values and external pressures led to a civil war from 1975 to 1990.

Outcome: Lebanon’s political instability persists today, with sectarian divisions often blamed for governance failures and corruption.

Modern Europe and Cultural Tensions

What Happened: In recent decades, Europe has faced challenges related to immigration, particularly from countries with differing cultural and religious practices.

Cultural and Governance Issues: Unassimilated immigrant communities have created parallel societies, leading to tensions with local populations. Examples include riots in France (2005, 2023) and concerns about radicalisation in countries like Belgium, Sweden, and the UK.

Outcome: While these challenges have not destroyed European democracies, they have sparked debates about multiculturalism, integration, and the limits of cultural relativism.

The idea that our beautiful Western goodwill will wear off any ancient prejudices isn’t true. Second and third-generation immigrants are often more extreme than their parents; the attackers in the Jew hunt in Amsterdam were second and third-generation Moroccans. If you bring in people from Algeria, likely 87% will be anti-semitic. Does that mean we must slam the door? No, we must talk about it; look at our streets. Of course, it’s not all Muslims, but the statistics are clear - in Canada, the most anti-semitic and anti-gay group is Muslim.

Our inaction and continual paeans to cultural relativism create not just self-censorship and the fear of being called racist; it also creates a fear of having a legitimate opinion misconstrued and distorted, weaponised to destroy careers and reputations.

Not to bring it back to me, but I have no apologies for calling Hamas Nazis, for noting that the Palestinian people are complicit in their crimes (though Hamas enthusiastically sacrifices the very people they claim to fight for when they murder children and then hide underground) and for saying I stand with Israel.

For this, over one year of suspension, shunning, defamation, abuse and likely eventual termination if the mob in administration, faculty, and the student body get their way. Not to mention the tens of thousands fevered by the tribalism of social media who have enthusiastically joined with the administration to demonize me and call me a violent racist.

This madness has grown in the ironic accepting shade of my accusers openly calling for the extermination of Israel while calling Hamas ‘noble warriors.’ The University of Guelph-Humber is playing the 98 lb weakling in fear of anti-semitic bullies, or there is simply a good deal of hidden anti-semitism in the business suits that populate the executive suite.

The message to the faculty is clear: free speech is over; my case has brought a heavy fog of self-censorship to the university. The administration is gibbeting me; my case is a fearsome warning to others who may be pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish.

Be quiet, it says, or you will end up like Finlayson. (Gibbeting was when medieval judges put the dead bodies of executed criminals in high cages in the town to offer a warning to those who might offend.)

The question remains: Who do we want to come to Canada?

Coming to a country is not a divine right; it is not a consumer product to be purchased (unless you come in on an investment visa); it is a privilege.

But the process has been politicised. New citizens have historically voted for the Liberals at over 50%. This could flip swing ridings in Brampton, Markham or Surrey to the Liberals; such is the cynical politics of the Trudeau gang.

Our reckless immigration policy is not a good-faith effort. It is a combination of incompetence, thoughtlessness, fear and the selfish pursuit of political advantage, with a selfish disdain for society's greater good.

But can a country be undone by its immigration policy?

While immigration has occasionally contributed to societal challenges, the real danger lies not in immigration itself but in the failure to address the cultural, political, and economic factors accompanying it. Democracies and good societies thrive on diversity but require a shared commitment to foundational values.

Without this, society's fabric risks being stretched too thin, creating fault lines that adversaries can exploit. A nuanced, balanced approach—rooted in clear values, effective governance, and mutual respect—remains the best defence against division and instability. Overplaying our hands will create more division and make things worse.

Canada is like someone who goes into a relationship and knows their partner has major issues but goes forward, living in the dreamy hope that they can change them. When immigrants are not encouraged or required to adopt the values and practices of their host society, it can create cultural enclaves that resist integration. Weak governance, ineffective policies, fear of being labelled discriminatory, or the inability to enforce laws can exacerbate tensions.

Letting in too many unskilled immigrants with poor language and education skills will lead to economic inequality, which creates resentment and ethnic enclaves. Most of all, as we see in Canada and Europe, moral cowardice and a reluctance to assert the host society's values as non-negotiable can lead to the erosion of core Canadian values over time.

According to True North, on Dec. 9, 2024, a recent study from Statistics Canada, “The short-term labour market outcomes of blended visa office-referred refugees,” authored by Yasmin Gure and Feng Hou, revealed that government-assisted refugees had some of the worst labour market outcomes compared to other classes.

Researchers highlighted that 42.3% of the 2014 cohort of government-assisted refugees aged 15 to 54 still relied on social assistance six years after landing in Canada.

Of the 2015 arrivals, over half were still on assistance, with 50.4% relying on social assistance after five years.

Social assistance reliance was even higher for the 2016 cohort, while Syrian resettlement continued, with 69.5% of government-assisted refugees reporting reliance on social assistance four years after landing.

It is not just Canada. In 1992, Denmark accepted 321 Palestinian refugees. The Danish government checked what happened to them in 2019, and it turned out that 64% of them had acquired a criminal record.

There are reasons for difficulties, such as refusal to assimilate and isolation within ethnic enclaves. Other reasons include language barriers, lack of credential acceptance, and immigrant perceptions that since their native culture is superior, cultural adaptation is illogical.

Regardless, five years is a long time. In Canada, our ratio of working to retired is 40 seniors for every 100 working, but in 10 years, it will be 48. Young working-age immigrants must work; if they don’t, they cannot stay.

Immigrants who stay on the dole for extended periods, even if they eventually start to work, end up costing the state hundreds of thousands, and it takes 15-20 years for the state to be made whole. Even if immigrants are younger, there is little value if they fail to assimilate and find work.

Taking benefits for many groups does not carry the cultural level of shame found in native-born Canadians, and, practically speaking, the benefits they receive may far exceed what they ever might have received from where they came.

Regardless, Canada cannot take low-productivity economic refugees. They lower the wages of entry-level native Canadians and reduce productivity. Canada is already experiencing a productivity crisis.

Canada cannot afford anything but a skills-based immigration policy. We need immigrants to keep the worker-to-retire ratios in line, but we cannot afford to be non-selective about who we bring in.

Canada cannot bring in low-skill, not working, culturally non-compatible immigrants. But Canada’s Trudeau’s steadfast acceptance of cultural relativism and conception of Canada as a post-national hotel pretends that all immigrants are of equal value. To accept this is not racist. Lack of assimilation frays the fabric of our society.

Cohesiveness does matter. We are not a hotel.

A Crisis of Wobbly Character

The national character of Canada is weak, fragmented, self-focused, and immature. Our national government seems to have extended the distance between rhetoric and action to new extremes. They feel mistreated when they are called out to do more than offer up words and positive intentions; they seem to feel that their job is to be the marketing department for what we would love to be good government; they want to throw out vague, aspirational plans, leave the room, gather all the objections of the omnipresent squeaky wheels, throw them back at the bureaucracy and wait for effective governance.

Our federal leaders are like children who received too many participation trophies and had too much buddy parenting (where the parent is a friend and not a parent). They are now lost in the adult world of governing what used to be a serious country. But perhaps the problem is they are too much like us.

We may blame leadership, but we get and tolerate the leaders we vote for, and very frequently, they offer a pale reflection of the national character. But we have tolerated those who reflect the worst Canadian character: weak, self-focused, unserious, and disconnected from our past. We allow them to create a Potemkin village’s false fronts of leadership and competency while the populace rarely examines what lies behind these garish storefronts.

We sacrifice a clear foreign policy to the interests of ethnic vote farming. We are like a dysfunctional family that oddly favours the children who cause the most problems. We have a dangerous concentration of power in the PMO office. What other first-world country allows a party to escape ethical scandal after ethical scandal, a party voted in by winning just 30% of the ridings and getting a lower percentage of the popular vote than the Conservative party?

We have allowed Trudeau to thumb his nose at the public for years, allowed rampant foreign interference, accepted anaemic investigations, procedural gaslighting, and confirmed his faith that if he hangs on long enough, the public will forget.

Even now, we have a 400 million dollar green slush fund on which the Liberals refuse to release unredacted documents. This is more self-dealing in the Liberal party. If we heard about it in a third-world nation, we would look down our noses at this type of corruption, but we are not outraged. Probably 99% of the population has never heard of the scandal, and the CBC can be counted on to ignore it.

On the streets, we are so afraid of being called racist or Islamophobe that we allow masked thugs, who certainly seem to be a mix of Arabs and TikTok-schooled humanities students, to wreak havoc on the streets; we arrest the innocent Jews and bring coffee to the angry and threatening Arabs because the police tell us that the Jews give them less problem.

We have a callow, ignorant pairing of Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister: one, a spoiled scion whose true calling was to be an Instagram influencer, and a Finance minister who was not able to get a mortgage in her thirties without parental help, a woman utterly out of her depth, with an arrogance and a condensation that defies reason, her only business experience being bankrupting a division of Reuters.

Yes, even then, she refused to listen, and no amount of failure can dent their great pride; the OECD says Canada will be the worse performing country in the next 30 years, our per capita GDP is declining, our immigration system is broken, thoughtlessly sold off in the interest of votes and easy growth, again sacrificing the future for the present.

We have a foreign minister who made the rare Liberal mistake of speaking the truth and admitted that she was trying to walk the line between supporting Israel and being pro-Hamas because her district had many Arabs. “Have you seen my district?” she asked.

But our national character can change; it is more than the three poor leaders. We can pause, reflect, remember, and draw on the virtues that have worked in the past. We can look to other countries.

But we must get beyond the habit of shutting down at the first protest by a favoured ethnic, regional or economic interest, who, like a murder of crows, are insistent in their objections.

We must first clearly state that we reject cultural relativism. With cultural relativism, what claim can we have to enforce our cultural values? Every nation that embraces cultural relativism is a hotel.

Diversity is not a value; it is a statement that there are differences.

We must confidently say these are our values; we believe they are the best and better than yours.

A national effort is needed to establish this. Such values need to be aspirational, more expectations than entitlements. Instead of bland references to hard work, we need to say meritocracy. When we say harmony, it does not mean accommodation to all individuals or ethnic whimperings. It means getting with the program. Today, where do we not tolerate the importation of ethnic divisions?

Moving Forward

We should examine best practices. But Canada’s issue is not a lack of ideas; it is cowardice, the acceptance of selfish and shallow leadership, the refusal to look behind the political trinkets we are offered, and our simpy nodding when politely told of their great value.

Groucho Marx famously said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” Of course, he meant it satirically, but Canada seems to have missed that. Our statement is, “We have principles, and if they offend you or bother you, we will back off and apologise, and you don’t need to worry about our principles.”

A meaty, confident statement of values must be worked out with multiple stakeholders involved. It has to have some bite and clarity. These cannot be motherhood statements; they are expectations. The real problem isn’t that we’re being overrun or outnumbered—it’s that we’re too weak to stand up for our values.

Fear of being called Islamophobic or racist has paralysed our institutions.

Police hesitate to arrest protesters chanting genocidal slogans. Politicians tiptoe around issues of integration, terrified of alienating voters. Voters are too disengaged to notice their representatives continually trading the future for the present and ignore how they only cater to the squeaky wheels.

This weakness doesn’t go unnoticed—those who wish to impose their worldview on others see Canada as an opportunity.

So what should we do?

Step One

Throw off our PM's banal, shallow, sophomoric whimpering. He is not us. He has said there is no mainstream; we are a post-national state, and we must value openness, respect, compassion, and a willingness to work hard and search for equality and justice. Of course, those fine things sound like the output of any tenth-grade civics group project that started too late. We need more.

Step Two

Benchmarking

Set Expectations Before Arriving - Denmark - National values are non-negotiable, civic integration a requirement, and cultural practices conflicting with the host country’s laws or norms will not be accommodated. Immigrants must sign a “Declaration of Integration” agreeing to respect Danish values, including democracy, gender equality, and freedom of speech. Australia - Commit to values statements that are loud and proud. The immigration process includes a mandatory “Australian Values Statement,” which applicants must sign to confirm their commitment to democratic principles, the rule of law, and equality.

Language requirements—Australia’s Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP): Free language classes are offered to new arrivals to help them integrate into the workforce and community. Emphasis is placed on teaching immigrants about the importance of shared values, gender equality, and civic duties. Denmark and Germany are similar. In the Netherlands, immigrants must take and pass a Values-Based Immigration Test.

No tolerance for ethnic division - Singapore - Prospective immigrants are educated about maintaining racial harmony and avoiding communalism. The city-state enforces strict rules against speech or behaviour that could incite ethnic or religious divisions. In Australia, the government is clear that diaspora conflicts or ideologies opposed to liberal democracy are unwelcome. Break the law with more than a 12-month sentence, and you are gone, and unlike in Canada, judges don’t deliberately manipulate sentences to make them less than 12 months.

Structured Integration Programs - Singapore - Successful countries ensure immigrants have access to structured programs that promote integration while making participation mandatory. These programs typically include language training, cultural orientation, and civics education. In Denmark, immigrants must complete a three-year integration program that includes Danish language classes and courses on Danish society and values. They have regular evaluations. Permanent residency or citizenship applicants must pass an exam covering Danish history, culture, and laws.

Rigorous Screening and Testing: - The Netherlands - The Civic Integration Exam includes hypothetical scenarios to evaluate whether applicants understand and respect Dutch norms. Background Checks:-Denmark restricts family reunification in cases where it suspects forced marriages or other practices inconsistent with Danish values. They include social media vetting and zero tolerance for extremism, and they monitor ethnic and religious groups for inflammatory behaviour, with immediate deportation for offenders.

Tighten up the refugee system—Yes, Canada has one of the most generous refugee systems in the world, offering robust support for asylum seekers, resettled refugees, and those needing protection. The processing time is measured in years, giving any applicant expensive subsidies for food, shelter and health care. Australia is often regarded as having one of the toughest refugee systems, while Denmark has increasingly tightened its policies to become a model of restrictive and controlled refugee management. Both countries combine stringent criteria for asylum, offshore processing, and robust integration policies, ensuring that only those who meet high standards of eligibility and willingness to integrate are admitted.

Step Three

Don’t go wobbly on implementation and sustaining our efforts. Canada is a land of opportunity and freedom, but that freedom is not unconditional. It is built on values that have been hard-won over centuries of struggle and debate. If we allow those values to be undermined—out of fear, complacency, or misplaced tolerance—we risk losing the things that make Canada worth immigrating to in the first place.

This isn’t a call to close our borders or to vilify entire communities. It’s a call to be clear, honest, and unapologetic about who we are and what we stand for. To remain a free and just society, we must demand that those who come here share that vision. Anything less is not compassion—it’s cowardice.

Countries that excel at integrating immigrants do so by setting clear expectations, enforcing non-negotiable values, and fostering genuine opportunities for integration. While endlessly touting multiculturalism, Canada can learn from Denmark, Australia, and Singapore to ensure its openness does not come at the expense of social cohesion.

Strong but fair measures are the key to balancing compassion with preserving shared values.

But this still avoids the hard question of whether we should broadly reject ethnic immigration pools where their common ethnic values run counter to Canadian values.

If we had strong values, this would be a rhetorical question.

We are not a post-national state. We must shut down the hotel mentality. We must not be racist, but we must stop letting the fear of being called racist drive our actions.

1. https://fortune.com/2023/01/11/hiring-jewish-people-antisemitism-workplace-study/